[Jim McDougall]

It seems that there is no biographical data on Lord Egerton beyond his political and peerage status, not even much family data other than the hugely complex pedigree.
It does seem quite possible, perhaps even likely, he may have gone to India as noted c. 1855 (by 1858 he was securely in the British political scene in England). In that time he may have become fascinated with the weaponry which could have inspired his collecting and cataloging of these weapon forms. His command of the objects seems far too detailed for someone simply working from loosely described items in a cluttered array of arms in stored holdings.
Still we can only assume this to be the case, but as noted, we owe him gratitude for his contribution with his benchmark of arms study.

It seems incredible that in the biographical data on line, absolutely no mention is made of this monumental achievement. Clearly his peerage and political career weighed far more heavily than a study of arms from India, in which there was little interest. As I noted earlier, in his study on swords in 1884, Burton obviously had no interest in those of India as no mention in this otherwise reasonably comprehensive book is made of them as far as contemporary forms.

I have often wondered if Burton ever knew, or knew of Egerton and his book, which was published four years before Burton's. In Egertons work, the weapons of Sind are included, and Burton had been there in 1875, yet he makes no mention of any of them, however he does spend 6 pages in ancient Indian history and classic weaponry. His comments are derisive in that he notes that all Hindu arms and armour are described as attributed to supernatural causes and scoffs at such descriptions as well as the work of Professor Oppert (1880).